Colleagues-
I have been looking at the PARs up for consideration in Hawaii. I have
minor detail comments on most of those addressed in a separate message.
This discussion is of a more broad-brush philosophical nature.
There have been questions about the overlap of scope in these 2 proposals
(P802.16e and MBWA ECSG Vehicular Mobile Broadband) I would like to see if
I can address the issues that have been brought up and should have been
brought up.
We have had many instances in the past where we have issued PARs with
overlapping scope. Generally we have done this only because we have FAILED
to reach consensus on scope or requirements, not because the market (as
opposed to the vendors) actually WANTED separate standards. The last
instance that I can recall is the division between deterministic (.4 & .5)
and "otherwise". Not even that was important enough for more than one to
survive in the market. I believe that the dominant driver for success was
(1) ease/cost of generating interoperable implementations and number of
significant suppliers committed to bringing product to market.
The real market (i.e. the end users who don't come to standards meetings)
wants a single standard for each application so there will be lots of
vendors to beat each other up on price.
Now, my view of what I see here:
Two projects that are trying to (appropriately) exploit the obvious market
gap between the ubiquity and mobility of cellular telephones and the
rapidly rising popularity of 802.11 Wireless LANs.
What would such a standard need? I can think of:
1) Only one standard
2) Single, low cost customer equipment, usable everywhere
3) Ability to maintain connectivity at vehicular speeds.
4) Hi speed transport of packets/IP
5) Use of "existing physical infrastructure" (read: cell towers)
6) Strong assurance of multi-vendor interoperability
7) Developed by an experienced standards group that knows how to write
concise, complete standards
8) No regulatory issues
9) Coexistence with other wireless services
10) Ability to be tariffed by common carriers
11) Support appropriate security for users in a mobile environment.
12) Ability to discover a new (no previous relationship) service provider
and start a session from cold start
Would be nice items:
1) Single standard world wide (auto manufacturers would appreciate this).
2) Can supplement common carrier infrastructure with ad-hoc infrastructure.
3) Mobile equipment/product can be made economically so that it can be
used in fixed/campus locations.
4) Power consumption & weight suitable for battery/portable devices
Arguable items:
1) Whether this project needs a clean sheet design or it would be
advantageous to reuse existing designs.
(There has been a statement from a Dot16 member that backward
compatibility is not an issue.)
2) Whether this project needs a new Working Group or it would be
advantageous to use existing one.
Bottom line Thompson opinion:
No vendor wants to implement both
No service provider will want to offer both
No way will both of these succeed in the marketplace even if you do get 2
standards out.
Both of them may not succeed in the marketplace if you get 2 standards out.
Therefore, I believe the only reason for 802 to charter two groups for this
work other than (or maybe including) the items listed above is people and
politics. Those are good reasons, just not good enough. We have used them
before but they are an admission of our failure to nurture a compromise or
reach a true consensus.
It seems like the task list above is large enough for the sum of folks
willing to do work from both groups.
I am truly eager to hear arguments to the contrary.
Best regards,
Geoff
|=========================================|
| Geoffrey O. Thompson |
| Vice Chair, IEEE 802 |
| Nortel Networks, Inc. M/S: P79/06/B04 |
| 4655 Great America Parkway |
| P. O. Box 58185 |
| Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185 USA |
| Phone: +1 408 495 1339 |
| Fax: +1 408 495 5615 |
| E-Mail: thompson@ieee.org |
| Please see the IEEE 802 web page at |
| http://www.ieee802.org/